[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 190 (Tuesday, December 15, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H14966-H14969]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         JOBS AND THE RECOVERY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Maffei). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. WALDEN. Well, it's that season. The Christmas season is upon us. 
And I sort of felt like I must have been at the Nutcracker, because I 
haven't seen that much spin since the sugar plum fairies in the 
Nutcracker.
  Let's talk about jobs and the recovery. Let's talk about fact and 
fact. When the American Recovery Act, the stimulus, was raced through 
this floor on a totally partisan move, we were told to expect that with 
the stimulus, as you can see here in this chart to my left, that this 
is what would happen to unemployment.
  Now, remember, when the year started and President Obama took office 
and the Democrats claimed control of the Senate with a 60-seat margin, 
that can overrun any filibuster--60 seats--and a 40-seat margin here in 
the House means they are unparalleled in their power and control and 
ability to pass anything they want anytime they want and sign it into 
law.
  When the year started, unemployment was at 7.6 percent in January of 
this year. High, by national standards. No doubt about it. Highest it 
had been in many years. We were headed into a recession. No doubt about 
it. We'd been through unprecedented times. But we were told if the 
American taxpayers would just go out and loan the Congress, actually 
it's not the American taxpayers yet, it's our kids and grandkids that 
get to pay it back later. Right now we're going to the Chinese and the 
Japanese and the oil-producing countries and saying, Can you loan us 
the money? But that's the dirty little secret here. If you'll loan us 
that $800 billion, whatever it was, here's where unemployment will end 
up. It's going to just barely go up and come out at about 8 percent. 
Oh, and by the way, we were told by some of the Democrats who were all 
for this that if we didn't pass the stimulus into law, that 
unemployment would go clear up to here.
  Now let's look at what really happened. Many of us on the Republican 
side of the aisle said, That isn't going to work. Just throwing more 
taxpayer money you don't have, borrowing more money from foreign 
countries that already have loaned us more than they want to, and 
throwing that out in rapid succession may create a few jobs, but the 
long-term implications are dangerous for the future of this country 
because of debt. And you're not going to create that many jobs. Sure, 
in a year or two you can't help but create jobs, and we'll talk about 
some of those because a lot of them are created right here in the 
Washington, D.C. area, not out in real America, and are not 
sustainable. But we were told if we pass it, here's where we'll be with 
unemployment, at about 8 percent. If we don't pass it, gosh, we'll end 
up almost at 9 percent.
  So they rushed it through here. The stimulus rushed through here. And 
now what are we at? We're over 10 percent unemployment. That's the red 
line. You see, some of us on the Republican side of the aisle actually 
come out of the private sector. We actually have signed the fronts of 
payroll checks like I have and my wife has. For 21, almost 22 years we 
were small business owners. We took over a very small family business, 
got it out of debt, on its feet and we grew it in 20 years. We employed 
15 to 17 people in small communities in Oregon. I know what it's like 
to be a small business owner and comply with the heavy hand of 
government regulation and the burdens of taxation and all the things 
that you all in government think ought to happen because you know best 
how to create jobs. What a farce that is.
  So we see what happens when you throw money at a problem: You waste 
it, and you don't create jobs. You see, Republicans did have an 
alternative. My friends and colleagues who were on the floor here 
earlier said that we had no alternative. Well, they know that's really 
not the case at all. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office evaluated 
both of our plans and said the Republican alternative would create 
twice the jobs at half the cost.

  Now, there are a lot of smart Christmas shoppers out there. Boys and 
girls, men and women, come closer. There are a lot of smart shoppers 
out there who look for bargains, and they say, If I could get twice the 
product at half the cost, that's a bargain. Unless you're the Democrat 
majority in the House and the Senate and downtown, then you want to 
spend twice as much and get half as much. You want to tell the American 
people, Pass my plan and I'll get you no more than maybe 9 percent 
unemployment, somewhere in the upper 8s. Actually, no, they said it 
wouldn't go above 8. That's right. They said it wouldn't go above 8.
  Whoa. It was at 7.6 and now it's at over 10. And let's talk about 
what happened to that stimulus. So how did they spend the money? There 
was an interesting report out in The Hill--$6 million borrowed from 
your kids and grandkids, actually borrowed from the Chinese, the 
Japanese, the oil-producing countries that buy our debt, and our kids 
and grandkids will get to repay this with interest. Six million of 
those dollars went to now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's 
pollster.
  I'm not making this up, folks. This is not a fairy tale. Two firms 
run by Mark Penn, current Secretary of State Clinton's former 
Presidential campaign pollster, received a total of $5.97 million in 
taxpayer funds from the Democrat stimulus that you heard created all 
these jobs, solved all these problems. Burson-Marsteller, a public 
relations and communications firm run by

[[Page H14967]]

Penn, received the funding to advertise the analog to digital 
television switch in 2008, reportedly saving three jobs at the firm. 
Three jobs. $6 million. Of the $5.97 million, $2.8 million was also 
allocated to Penn's campaign polling firm, Penn, Schoen and Berland. At 
the end of the day, taxpayers spent $6 million to save three jobs. $6 
million, three jobs.
  How many of you go home to your constituents and say, in a town 
meeting, Can you loan me $6 million, because I've got a brilliant way 
to create three jobs for Hillary Clinton's pollsters and public 
relations people to tell people in America that, by the way, you are 
going to switch from analog to digital on your TV which, by the way, 
they were very capable of figuring out on their own. We didn't need to 
spend the nearly $2 billion that was spent in the overall conversion 
effort to educate the public. They got it. They're smart enough to 
figure this stuff out. And if they're not, they've got 12-year-old kids 
that can figure out how to make the DVD not blink and the VCR not 
blink. But anyway, $6 million, two jobs. Two million on a dance 
theater.
  Oh, this one you'll like. Los Angeles Times. The Minneapolis city 
council recently voted to use Federal stimulus funds to convert a 
vacant, 99-year-old theater into a center of dance instead of funding a 
solar energy panel manufacturing plant that would have created seven 
times as many jobs. Now my friends who were talking before me talked 
about the green energy jobs. Well, here was a perfect opportunity, with 
your Federal tax dollars, to create green energy jobs and the 
Minneapolis city council decided to put it into a dance theater 
instead. The dance project will cost $2 million and create 48 permanent 
jobs, according to the city.

                              {time}  2045

  Interestingly, in the spring newsletter, the theater estimated that 
completing the project would actually only create 26 full-time and 
part-time permanent jobs. So in their spring newsletter, they said 26. 
Now it's reported at 48. The solar energy panel manufacturing plant, 
meanwhile, that was in competition for that stimulus money received 
less than $300,000, compared with the dance theater's $2 million, yet 
the plant would have created more than 360 jobs by 2011. But they 
couldn't do the right, what is it, minuet? They couldn't spin just 
correctly. They weren't, I don't know, maybe they didn't have the right 
tutu on or the right shoes or something. They only had $300,000. The 
dance theater got $2 million.
  Americans could have created 360 jobs in Minneapolis. They made that 
decision. Councilman Paul Ostroff was the single councilman voting 
against the Center of Dance saying ``the theater wasn't creating enough 
jobs to qualify for stimulus money, whereas, the solar energy plant 
clearly fit the President's goal. It was a home run. It was a home 
run.''
  I told you a week or so ago about the $95,000 being spent to study 
Viking-era pollen in Iceland. Viking-era pollen in Iceland, $95,000. 
Having been a small business person I've helped create jobs, and I've 
watched every nickel. You do that when you're in real America. Not back 
here. When you're in real America and creating real jobs, and you're 
trying to get to something we call positive cash flow and maintain 
that, you watch every nickel. You don't let $95,000 go out the door to 
study Viking-era pollen in Iceland. You make sure that you invest every 
cent correctly and effectively. You don't just spend money rampantly. 
You don't throw it out the door. It's too hard to earn. And you're 
trying to grow your business. You're trying to expand your business.
  That's what the American way is about. My friend earlier talked as if 
the whole American recovery, the whole economy and the greatness that 
we have, originated because of some Federal programs in the Great 
Depression, the WPA the CCC. And certainly they left a nice footprint 
behind with some of our fantastic park lodges and buildings. And they 
did some wonderful work. That is not the essence of America's economy. 
It doesn't start and stop right here in these two wells, the Well of 
the House or there at the leadership tables. We are not the innovators 
and creators of jobs. That is out there in America.
  Ladies and gentlemen, in the real world, when somebody has an idea, 
they get a couple of people together who want to believe in that idea, 
and they put their money forward. They don't go take it from somebody 
like the tax man or woman does. They put their money at risk. And they 
say, if we do it a little better, a little smarter, we can be 
successful. We can create jobs. We can benefit from that. And by the 
way, it's our money at risk as private citizens. So, we're going to be 
real careful how that gets spent. We're not going to waste it on lavish 
offices and all these things. That's the real America out there.
  You know what I'm talking about, small businessmen and women. You go 
behind the counter and behind the wall, and they have a broken-down 
chair and a computer that's sort of wired together that they try and 
keep operating, and they have paper piled around. I have been in your 
offices. I had one of your offices. I can show you the pictures and the 
piles. I know what it's like to work day and night to make your idea 
successful. That is the American entrepreneurial spirit that works.
  And yet here in Washington under the party that's in power, they know 
no limit, no limit to Federal government involvement in your life. They 
know no limit to borrowing, spending, and believing that they should 
take over your health care. The Democrats want to put a bureaucrat 
between you, your insurance company, and your doctor. It's bad enough 
with the bureaucracy that's out there today trying to get health care. 
I paid for health care for our employees, my wife and I did, paid 100 
percent of the premium. I know what those cost increases look like. We 
never could target enough to figure how much they would go up. And I 
want to do something to reform health care, and I have supported many 
proposals to do so.
  The irony is the plans coming out of this Congress, these plans 
however, increase premiums on employers, drive up the cost curve on 
those of us who are trying to figure out how to make health care more 
affordable. The Democrats' plan actually drives up the cost curve, 
drives up the premium, puts mandates on individuals and taxes on small 
businesses and will cost millions of jobs long term and make America 
less competitive.
  You don't think capital doesn't flow any more? You don't think we 
live in a global economy? For heaven's sakes. You don't think we need 
to be on our best game and have the most efficient process available to 
create jobs and run a business? No. I sit here in amazement. I have 
spent all-nighters in my business trying to make it work. I have 
struggled trying to pay the bills, get up early in the morning, trying 
to figure it all out, trying to cut your costs, trying to create your 
jobs, save jobs during tough times. We were in business 22 years. I 
have seen the good times, and we were successful in the end. I have 
seen the bad times, and I know what that's like.
  But I also know that it's important how you spend your money. FOX 
News reported recently the National Institutes of Health received $8.2 
billion in stimulus funds. I'm all for the National Institutes of 
Health. However, NIH is conducting a $65,472 study on the relationship 
between HIV and sex in St. Petersburg, Russia. You think I'm making 
this stuff up, don't you? $65,472 to study the relationship between HIV 
and sex in St. Petersburg, Russia. I won't even go there. $700,000 on 
how taxes, trade, and politics affects tobacco sales in Thailand, 
Malaysia, Vietnam, and other nations in Southeast Asia. $73,000--you'll 
like this one--to study whether the Asian tradition of dragon boat 
racing will enhance the lives of cancer survivors--$73,000 to look at 
whether or not dragon boat racing enhances the lives of cancer 
survivors.
  Why don't we put it into screenings? Oh, that's right. This is the 
administration that says, women don't really need to do breast 
screenings nearly as often or maybe at all. That's a report that came 
out of this administration. How absurd is that? Put your money in 
dragon boat racing, don't do mammograms. This doesn't make sense to me. 
And I don't think it makes sense to Americans.
  We are looking at some of the other spending. How about this one: 
$67,726 in taxpayer money to send staff to a customer service seminar, 
the Green Bay

[[Page H14968]]

Press-Gazette reports. The Oneida Bingo and Casino outside of Green 
Bay, Wisconsin, used a Federal stimulus grant to send their staff to a 
customer service seminar. The 2-day seminar was held at a local 
technical college to teach the casino staff how to handle 
confrontations with customers.
  These are the investments. Do you see why some of us, why every 
Republican voted against that stimulus? We knew it was going to be 
wasted.
  Now let's go to the Congressional Budget Office because they said in 
the first year or two you can't spend that much money and not create a 
few jobs, even though they are probably short term. So I give them 
that. What they look at after that, though, is the debt service cost 
that actually becomes in the out years, years 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 
a debt drag on the economy. It will cost us jobs because you can't 
borrow $800 billion and not have to pay it back. Even the Federal 
Government needs to learn that lesson.
  Let's talk about the debt, because I think that is the single biggest 
threat to our country's future, to my son's future, to your children's 
future, is this enormous theft, intergenerational theft I think Senator 
John McCain called it, where we're taking money from them. Actually 
we're just stealing their credit card, and we're using it like there is 
no necessity to ever pay it back, to buy things today that they get the 
bill for later.
  At $1.4 trillion, this year's deficit is more than three times that 
of a year ago. I want that number to sink in; $1.4 trillion dollars 
this year is triple what it was last year. Oh, and who was President 
last year? That's right, George W. Bush was. So they want to blame the 
prior administration. And certainly we all had our complaints at times 
with any administration. But the facts are these: $455 billion deficit 
at the beginning of this last fiscal year; this fiscal year, under 
Democrat control, House, Senate, White House, $1.4 trillion.
  As a share of the economy, it's 10 percent of gross domestic product. 
That is the highest level since World War II. Deficits, however, went 
up under both parties. That's why we need a constitutional amendment to 
require a balanced budget. The great State of Oregon has had that in 
its constitution for as long as I can remember, and maybe since 
Statehood. And it has forced the State legislature and the Governor to 
make tough decisions to balance the budget. Sometimes I have agreed 
with those decisions, sometimes I haven't. Sometimes they've raised 
taxes and sometimes they've cut spending. But at the end of the day, 
they had to balance the budget.
  If you want to reform this Congress, you would require that this 
Congress, every time, and the President, regardless of party, has to 
balance the budget. You could have an exemption if you're at war or in 
times of emergency. I understand that the Federal Government has some 
unique roles to play. But this is spending with reckless abandon. This 
is out of control. Debt held by the public rose above $7.5 trillion, or 
over 50 percent of gross domestic product, the highest level of the 
share of the economy in 50 years.
  When Speaker Pelosi took over, it was at $8.9 billion--trillion 
dollars. Sorry. It's so hard to keep track of billions going to 
trillions. We used to--well, I think 100 bucks is a lot. When you're 
spending taxpayer money, we're talking billion, millions, forget it; 
billions, we don't even go there any more. We are now talking 
trillions.
  So when Speaker Pelosi took over, the national debt was $8.9 
trillion. Now why does that matter? The House controls the purse 
strings of what gets spent. So whoever controls the House starts every 
spending bill. That's how the process works. It's simple civics. The 
House, the United States House of Representatives, this body, you men 
and women who are watching or here tonight know that that's how it 
really works. The President can veto it, but at the end of the day, 
it's the House and the Senate that get together. The Congress controls 
the purse strings. The House originates these things.
  So $8.9 trillion; the debt is now $12 trillion. Every man, woman and 
child in America is responsible for at least $39,000, and it's going up 
to $45,000. Under the President's budget, the debt is projected to 
double in the next 5 years, triple in 10. It will be roughly three-
fourths the size of the entire economy by 2019.
  Now I want you to think about a debt that goes to $17 trillion, $18 
trillion, $19 trillion, $20 trillion, and how you ever pay that back. 
When Republicans were in charge of the Congress and before the 9/11 
attacks and the wars broke out, we actually paid down debt, half a 
trillion dollars worth. It was a proud moment for our country and for 
this Congress and for both parties. But it was really Republicans who 
drove it. We had a Democrat President. We worked in a bipartisan way to 
get it done, though. And the economy is strong. And we paid down debt.

  Now go with me on this. Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, get 
closer to that TV because we're going to go through some math here. I 
was a journalism major, not a math major, but I think I can figure this 
one out. Twenty trillion dollars is at issue here. To pay it off, 
presume that Congress would have to run a surplus of $1 trillion a year 
for a 20-year span and not spend it, actually apply it to paying down 
the debt. How many in this Chamber tonight think that's going to 
happen? Raise your--well, nobody raised their hands. Because nobody 
believes Congress will ever run a trillion dollar surplus under any 
condition and apply it to pay down the debt.
  That's why these issues today in our country's life are so critical, 
because we have taken our kids' and grandkids' and probably great 
grandkids' credit cards and spent like there was no reason not to. And 
they're going to get the bill.
  According to The Washington Post, when adjusted for the inflation, 
World War II, the Korean War, the interstate highway system, the 
Vietnam War, the race to the moon, and the Iraq War added up to $6 
trillion. We are now at 12, and we are headed to 20. In comparison, the 
government will borrow $9 trillion over the next decade.
  Now, let's go to a bill that just came up in this House Chamber. It's 
called the omnibus. Whenever you hear that word, shutter your 
children's eyes and ears. Omnibus. It's really a bad thing. American 
families are hurting. Ten percent unemployment. Democrat leadership 
responds with a massive spending bill last Thursday. Last Thursday this 
came forward. And let me talk to you about that bill; 2,500 pages, 
nearly half a trillion dollars in spending, 5,000 earmarks on hundreds 
of pages, and we, under the Democrat leadership, we in the House of 
Representatives--do you know how much time we were given to read it?
  Now I'm not Evelyn Wood. It takes me a little more, I'm not a great 
speed reader. We were given 2 days to read the bill since the 
conference report was filed.

                              {time}  2100

  Two days. Half a trillion dollars was spent. Two thousand five 
hundred pages, 5,000 earmarks, and we were given 2 days.
  The omnibus contained appropriation bills--$446.8 billion for those 
keeping track. So half a trillion, 12 percent over the combined funding 
levels for the same six appropriation bills last year. How many of you 
got a 12 percent raise? How many of you would just like to have a job? 
How many of you got a 12 percent raise? These six spending bills gave 
your Federal agencies a 12 percent increase in spending.
  Now, there will be those that will say, Oh, but it was for this, it 
was for that. Everything is wonderful when you're giving it away. 
Everybody wants to be Santa Clause. There's a big bag in the back of 
the sleigh parked right behind the podium here, I'm convinced of it. 
There are more presents than there are kids right now when it comes to 
this Congress; the problem is we don't have the elves' workshop at the 
North Pole. We've got kids at home and families at home who are 
unemployed trying to figure out how to make ends meet. You would think 
that this government was running a huge surplus and would be able to 
help them, but no, we're running a huge deficit that hurts jobs, takes 
away jobs, and they spend 12 percent more.
  Some of these bills, the Transportation-HUD bill was up 21.3 percent; 
State and Foreign Operations up 33.2 percent. In addition to the normal 
appropriations, the agencies funded in this omnibus received a total of 
$128.2 billion in supplemental funding in the

[[Page H14969]]

stimulus bill that we heard about earlier. So when you heard about this 
stimulus, the American Recovery Act and how evil it was the Republicans 
didn't vote for it, remember where a lot of that money went; it went 
back into the government. It didn't go out into middle America. It 
didn't go out into rural America. Some of it did, certainly, but it did 
not go very far outside of Washington.
  So here is the final tally: The omnibus spending bill I just 
referenced brings new spending for nondefense, nonveterans 
discretionary programs to a level 85 percent higher than 2 years ago.
  Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield for a procedural motion?
  Mr. WALDEN. I will be happy to yield to my colleague.

                          ____________________